Dutton, letters help, so keep writing them. But it will take the Supreme Court to either rectify or perpetuate the situation, which comes about thanks to Repeal of Prohibition.

The law took alcohol distrinution out of the hands of criminals and gave it to the states, who in turn made up wonderful rules that essentially protected some of the same criminals who then became legit.

A few updates -- I'll do my best to keep people posted on what's going on with this issue. Sorry if this duplicates stuff that you already know; in the future, I'll try to be a bit more current. Feel free to e-mail me any comments/questions!

In VA: I just received a transcript of an oral hearing regarding the Defendant's (the bad guys) Motion to Dismiss. The Virginia ABC tried to couch the shipment issue in terms of compliance with VA's labelling requirements (head scratch...), but the good guys reminded the court that the BATF already has labelling requirements and background checks. The judge denied the Motion to Dismiss and is allowing the case to go forward. Just from the judge's brief comments (e.g. his statement re: the ABC's "inflated prices"), it appears the Court is leaning toward our side in VA as well.

In MI (my home state): Attorney General Jennifer Granholm continues her undercover sting operations using underage detectives to buy alcohol online. She has already filed criminal charges against two Illinois merchants and got UPS to agree not to ship into Michigan.

On the Hill: The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a version of S.577 (allowing states to pursue illegal shippers in federal court) that includes language explicitly spelling out that the law is not meant to discriminate against out-of-state shipments. The bill now goes to the Senate floor. Although the wholesaler lobby considers this a victory, the added language now puts the shipping issue squarely in the courts.

Also: Gallo has filed a "friend of the court" brief in the IN lawsuit supporting the wholesalers (gasp!). Shame shame shame...

I sat down today and composed letters to each of my state and federal legislators. I asked them for their position on the issue of free trade. I wanted to know why I can legally have wine shipped to me from any dealer in Virginia, but not from any dealer of my choice (who happens to be out of state).

I really am fed up. I've been looking for Rosemount GSM, Stag's Leap Petite Sirah, Ridge Petite Sirah and Columbia Crest Cab for the past five days. None of the legal sources in Virginia that I've been able to check have these wines. But if WS gave a wine 90+ points or a "best buy", then those wines are easy to find, until they sell out. Our local wine merchant was only allocated 13 cases of Rosemount GSM. It disappeared on the first day he put it up for sale. He can't get anymore at all....... period. Now I realize that he can't stock all of the Rosemont, but if he runs out and more is available then he ought to be able to order it. Allocation, schmallocation, that is bullhockey.

I spoke at length with one wine merchant today. He was not even aware of the fact that the Viriginia ABC is being sued. But he sure was interested in hearing about it. He is as frustrated as I am. He wants to stock his shop with a wide variety of good wines and he can't, because the distributors don't carry the wines he wants and he can't buy from anyone else.

I have a local senator, a local delegate, a Congressman and two US Senators. Their mailboxes are going to be inundated as long as I have paper, envelopes and stamps!

Hope you all know that the bill that has already passed the house, came out of senate committee yesterday. It may go to full senate next week. This bill will provide federal backup to all state anti-shipping laws. Start e-mailing your senators folks. Reference: "The 21st Ammendment Enforcement Act", S577.

Believe it or not...I get all my wine news concerning the Georgia felony law from here. I read 3 newspapers a day, and not one word
has been printed concerning this asinine law. Please keep me informed. If anyone knows of a website to contact to fight this here please let me know. There is supposed to be an article coming out in the Atlanta Wine Report sometime soon about this if their editor doesn't kill the story. I was interviewed briefly about my attitudes about the law and my ability to purchase wines of any quality locally. The reporter also told me about Georgia trying to strong-arm UPS into not accepting shipments form places willing to defy the law here. She said her editor was a little shakey about running the article, because the last time he even casually mentioned it, distributors pulled thousands of dollars in ad revenue from them!

One website that you may want to hit to keep up with this issue and other issues is http://www.wineindustrynews.com. It's updated every weekday.

Funny you should mention how some distributors influence the local wine press. It's definitely the case here with the Detroit News -- the wine columnist is really tight with one of the wholesalers, and during this whole anti-shipping fight over the past year, she has not written a single column about the issue! It's weird reading her weekly column; it's as if the whole issue doesn't even exist for her.

Keep writing those letters to the Senate! Heck, throw some corks in those letters too, just to keep things interesting!

BTW -- I have electronic copies of all of the pleadings/paperwork from the VA case. Please drop me an e-mail if you're interested in receiving a copy.

For Anna - thanks! PS: I've been in touch with Matt Hale and offered what little support I might be able to provide as an interested party.

Here is a generic verstion of the letter I sent to all of my state Senators and Delegates and to all of my Federal Senators and Representatives and to all of the rest of the Federal Senators:

As an adult voter of our great state, I strongly encourage you to support my ability to purchase wines not readily available in my local market. In addition, I hope you will oppose any further attempts at restricting my ability to purchase fine wine.

Legislation will be re-introduced at the Federal level in 2000 (Senate Bill S577) giving state attorney generals the right to seek an injunction in Federal court against wine direct shippers. This legislation would merely favor a state-legislated monopoly in wine distribution at the expense of consumer access to the incredible diversity of America's wines.

There are other legislative options available that would satisfy consumer demand for wines not available locally, and provide the necessary tax collection provisions and regulations for a socially-sensitive product like wine. The National Conference of State Legislatures passed a resolution in 1999 asking Congress NOT to pass this biased legislation. If not the states, then who is this legislation protecting?

Don't tell me that in Virginia it is a tax issue. Virginia already has laws in effect that require consumers to report the value of items purchased out of state for use in state and then pay the appropriate sales tax. The consumer use form is the vehicle required for consumers to pay taxes on items they purchased from out of state.

Don't tell me that in Virginia it is an issue of easily enabling minors to purchase alcohol. The only time that has ever been an issue is when state authorities run stings using underage detectives deliberately designed to entrap the already dishonest. Simply requiring the shipper to collect an adult signature upon delivery is sufficient to prevent sale to minors. Please note the following information provided by Free The Grapes:

March 10, 1999, NAPA, Calif. - Jeremy Benson, Executive Director of Free the Grapes!, commented today on the recent misrepresentation of the wine industry as "bootleggers" when wine is directly shipped across state borders to consumers. Free the Grapes! is a national, non-profit coalition of 145,000 wine consumers and associations representing over 1,000 of America's winemakers whose goal is to ensure access to fine wine.

"This issue is not about minors. These false and misleading claims seek to protect the profits of an entrenched state-sanctioned monopoly that no longer has the financial incentive to distribute for small family-owned wineries. The wholesaler lobby has attempted in numerous forums, including a United States Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on March 9th, to portray the wine industry as a "bogeyman" handing out wine to teens through home delivery."

"The wholesaler lobby turns a blind eye to direct shipping when it doesn't cross state lines. In fact, intrastate delivery is legal in 30 states. The Americans for Responsible Alcohol Access (ARAA), a self-proclaimed 'safety coalition' which is fully-funded by the wholesaler lobby, has been noticeably silent regarding intrastate deliveries. 'Any shipment that crosses a state border outside (the existing) system is illegal', (ARAA press release March 9, 1999). Are we supposed to believe that a shipment from Los Angeles to San Francisco isn't a threat to minors, but from L.A. to Phoenix it is?"

"In states where interstate direct shipping is legal, minor access has not been a problem. Manny Espinoza, Chief Deputy Director of the California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control, stated in written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, '...We have to date witnessed no measurable adverse effects on public welfare or safety that could be attributable to interstate mail order alcohol sales.'

The United States Constitution provides me, as a consumer, the right to purchase from whomever I please and further tells the individual states that they can not prevent free commerce for the sole purpose of protecting an in state concern. Recent court descisions in Indiana and Texas have clearly shown that the 21st Ammendment is not intended to restrict free trade. Hopefully, that will also become clear in the present case against the state of Virginia.

Regarding the court case in Virginia, I am following that very closely and with great interest. Progress so far is encouraging for the consumer. Information that I've received from the Coalition for Free Trade is quite positive. To quote my contact at CFT, "In Virginia: I just received a transcript of an oral hearing regarding the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. "The Virginia ABC tried to couch the shipment issue in terms of compliance with VA's labelling requirements, but the good guys reminded the court that the BATF already has labelling requirements and background checks. "The judge denied the Motion to Dismiss and is allowing the case to go forward. Just from the judge's brief comments (e.g. his statement re: the ABC's "inflated prices"), it appears the Court is leaning toward our side in VA as well."

I clearly do not understand why it is okay for me to have wine shipped to my home from a Virginia distributor, but not from one located in California or Washington.

Please let me know where you stand on this important consumer rights issue.

Wow! That's one heck of a letter. Thanks so much for getting involved on this issue. I'm glad you enjoyed reading the VA material I sent you. It's going to be a long battle, but at least we're seeing some glimmers of hope. I'll make any excuse to celebrate and open a bottle...